CUBA ACCUSES UNITED STATES OF LYING ABOUT CUBA PREPARING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, URGES WORLD TO IMPEDE ‘HEGEMONIC POWER’
DCF/416
30 May 2002
CUBA ACCUSES UNITED STATES OF LYING ABOUT CUBA PREPARING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS,
URGES WORLD TO IMPEDE ‘HEGEMONIC POWER’
Brazil, United States, Algeria,
France (As President of Conference) Also Take Floor
(Reissued as received.)
VIENNA, 30 May (UN Information Service) -- The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard Cuba accuse the United States of lying about alleged attempts by Cuba to prepare biological weapons and to provide technology of dual use to "rogue" States.
Ambassador Jorge Ivan Mora Godoy of Cuba said the Government of the United States had lied, once again, when accusing Cuba of carrying out a limited offensive work of investigation and development of biological war and of having providing technology of dual use to other States that the United States described as "rogue".
Mr. Mora Godoy noted that, on 13 May, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell had had to clarify the accusations, reiterating the reality that Cuba did not possess biological weapons. The United States Government had lied once again in connection with Cuba and had been caught red-handed.
The world could not remain indifferent to the real possibility that this hegemonic Power would act with total impunity and disrespect for the will of the immense majority of the world’s countries, taking drastic decisions on the subject of disarmament, outside of multilateral forums, Mr. Mora Godoy added. To impede the continuation of this type of action was a fundamental collective responsibility of all States.
In response, the representative of the United States said he regretted that the distinguished colleague from Cuba had felt it necessary to engage in a rather inflammatory statement which attacked the United States. This showed the difficulty of carrying out a dialogue with someone who was using terms like "a bunch of lies again". On the other hand, the comments by Cuba on the weapons of mass destruction and terrorism were well taken. The United States was anxious for the Conference to deal with these two issues which were the agenda of 2002. The United States looked forward to fruitful and productive discussions on these issues, rather than engaging in polemics.
Also this morning, Hubert de la Fortelle of France, the incoming President of the Conference, said that more than in any other area multilateral disarmament depended directly on current developments concerning international security. The profound strategic international changes which had been seen had created new uncertainties concerning the future world equilibrium. The situation was not particularly auspicious for the emergence of an international consensus on multilateral disarmament. Yet, such consensus was necessary for the renewal of work in the Conference.
He said the intentions of France, as President for the next four weeks, were clear, limited a priori, and broadly dependent on ideas which might emerge from consultations. France would continue with its consultations and would listen to all delegations. He did not intend to start from scratch. The Conference had some achievements, a common heritage, which he had kept in mind since he had started consultations at the beginning of the week and which he was holding in a spirit of total transparency.
The representative of Algeria said that France's presidency was important. The President represented a country which was one of the P5 (five permanent member States of the Security Council), and his responsibility extended beyond the views that he would be asking for; they extended to the need to get the work of the Conference going again. The P5 had to be aware of this responsibility as it was up to them to introduce some elements and points to help the Conference get out of the deadlock.
The representative of Brazil took the floor to clarify the position of her delegation made during the informal consultations held on 23 May on the proposals by the former President of the Conference, Ambassador Markku Reimaa of Finland. She said that, although the first two versions of Mr. Reimaa's initiative were well balanced and Brazil had supported them, a third version which came out significantly changed the first two versions of the initiative, and Brazil reserved the position to express itself further on this issue in the future.
The President noted that immediately following the plenary, informal consultations would be held by the Special Coordinator on improving the efficiency of the Conference, Ambassador Prasad Kariyawasam of Sri Lanka. And following the next plenary, which would be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 6 June, Ambassador
Eui-Yong Chung of the Republic of Korea, the Special Coordinator for the review of the agenda of the Conference, would hold informal consultations.
Statements
HUBERT DE LA FORTELLE (France), the incoming President of the Conference, said that the disarmament process was ongoing, as could be seen by the most recent and spectacular signing by the United States and the Russian Federation of a new treaty to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals. It was a secret for no one that the situation within the Conference was hardly encouraging. The Conference was facing a dual difficulty, the course of negotiations and the temptation to bypass this forum. The compromise formula on the work programme of the Conference which had been drafted by various Presidents since 1999 had not proven successful. In the present context, the negotiations were deadlocked. According to the experience of the previous Presidents, the dialogue which could have led to one or several sets of negotiations did not seem to be acceptable to all. If none of the negotiations were functional, the world might find itself tempted to bypass the Conference. Subjects which ought to be dealt with in the Conference seemed to run the risk of eluding it. Was the Conference doomed to failure? He did not think so.
Mr. de la Fortelle said that more than in any other area multilateral disarmament depended directly on current developments concerning international security. The profound strategic international changes which had been seen had created new uncertainties concerning the future world equilibrium. The situation was not particularly auspicious for the emergence of an international consensus on multilateral disarmament. Yet, such consensus was necessary for the renewal of work in the Conference. The intentions of France, as President for the next four weeks, were clear, limited a priori, and broadly dependent on ideas which might emerge from consultations. France would continue with its consultations and would listen to all the delegations. He did not intend to start from scratch. The Conference had some achievements, a common heritage, which he had kept in mind since he had started consultations at the beginning of the week and which he was holding in a spirit of total transparency.
The new President said that he did not wish to discard any path which might prove to be encouraging. He had no set ideas in terms of work during the next four weeks. He committed himself to informing the Conference regularly as to the state of the progress of his consultations and thoughts in order to ensure that there was no lack of clarity. He was also not forgetting the very useful work of the Special Coordinators which he fully supported.
JORGE IVAN MORA GODOY (Cuba) said the paralysis in the Conference was disquieting in the current circumstances, where the very essence of multilateralism was seriously threatened by the hegemonic and unilateral policy of one country which had pretensions to being the owner of the world. The abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missiles Treaty, the advancement to deploy a new anti-missile defence system, and the announcement that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty would not be ratified were among examples of this assertion. The United States had inherited advantageous conditions from the outcome of the cold war period, but today, the scenario was worse than that of 10 years ago, characterized by threats, wars, unilateral actions and attempts to modify the approaches that gave origin to the international juridical order in the field of disarmament and arms control.
Mr. Mora Godoy said that the United States had not hesitated in producing lists of supposed violators of international agreements on disarmament, using the international fight against terrorism and the speculative linking of its imaginary promoters and perpetrators, with the aspiration to develop or to acquire weapons of mass destruction, as the pretext to justify the threat and the resort to the armed aggression, even elaborating a list of eventual United States "nuclear targets". In this crusade, the Government of the United States had made use of the lie, once again, when accusing Cuba of carrying out a limited offensive work of investigation and development of biological war and of having providing technology of dual use to other States that the United States described as "rogue". The Permanent Representative of Cuba said he preferred to concentrate on the false accusation relating to biological weapons and he read out parts of a declaration by President Fidel Castro delivered on 10 May in response to the lies by the United States. Mr. Mora Godoy noted that on 13 May, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell had had to clarify the accusations, reiterating the reality that Cuba did not possess biological weapons. The United States Government had lied once again in connection with Cuba and had been caught red-handed. He would only add that the products and technologies of the Cuban biotechnology industry were available in more than 40 countries, and all transfers were governed by a bilateral agreement that established the use of the technologies only for peaceful purposes.
Cuba had expressed its firm rejection of the scourge of terrorism and had taken steps to fight it. Those who supported and encouraged terrorist actions against Cuba organized from their own territory did not have the moral right to accuse Cuba, Mr. Mora Godoy said. The total elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the only viable solution to the threat that these weapons represented as potential instruments of terrorist acts. Cuba actively supported the need to start negotiations on a multilateral legally binding treaty to completely prohibit and destruct weapons of mass destruction, while the United States rejected it.
In conclusion, Mr. Mora Godoy said that for Cuba the issue of missiles should be seen in all its aspects and in a balanced and a non-discriminatory manner, including the question of international cooperation for the peaceful use of outer space. The United Nations played an essential role in the analysis and solution of the problem of missiles, which was why Cuba had been supporting the resolution on this matter in the General Assembly. The Conference on Disarmament also had an important role to play in the prevention of an arms race in outer space. An extremely disquieting international scenario was unfolding with very negative implications for the whole system of multilateral negotiations in the sphere of disarmament and arms control. The world could not remain indifferent to the real possibility that the hegemonic Power will act with total impunity and disrespect to the will of the immense majority of the world’s countries, taking drastic decisions on the subject of disarmament, outside of multilateral forums. To impede the continuation of this type of action was a fundamental collective responsibility of all States.
CELINA M. ASSUMPÇAO DO VALLE PEREIRA (Brazil) said she had taken the floor to clarify the position of her delegation made during the informal consultations held on 23 May on the proposals by the former President of the Conference, Ambassador Markku Reimaa of Finland. During those consultations, she had expressed Brazil's support for Mr. Reimaa's proposals concerning the possible starting of work on an informal basis within the Conference by four Ad Hoc Committees. Mr. Reimaa's initiative had been well balanced. Brazil had also supported the revised formula of the initiative which kept the balance. However, a third version then came out which significantly changed the first two versions of the initiative, and Brazil reserved the position to express itself further on this issue in the future.
SHERWOOD MCGINNIS (United States) said that his country had not planned to take the floor, however, he felt the need to respond to the statement by Cuba. The United States regretted that the distinguished colleague from Cuba had felt it necessary to engage in a rather inflammatory statement which attacked the United States. This showed the difficulty of carrying out a dialogue with someone who was using terms like "a bunch of lies again". Everyone at the Conference wished to get down to work. The twenty-first century faced situations far different from the previous century, and it was up to the Conference to assess the threats to the international community’s security; in doing so, States had to deal with agreements which it had already signed. Compliance to treaties was extremely important to the United States, as was the question of universality. The United States wanted to engage in work that would have results and would make a difference and improve life and security on the planet. The comments by Cuba on the weapons of mass destruction and terrorism were well taken. The United States was anxious for the Conference to deal with these two issues which were the agenda of 2002. The United States looked forward to fruitful and productive discussions on these issues, rather than engaging in polemics.
MOHAMED-SALAH DEMBRI (Algeria) said that he had planned to speak next week and did not have a prepared text for today. However, after having listened to the statement by the President of the Conference, he found in it the necessary points to help the Conference in its collective thinking on what was going on. France’s presidency was important. The President represented a country which was one of the P5 (five permanent member States of the Security Council), and his responsibility extended beyond the views that he would be asking for; they extended to the need to getting the work of the Conference going again. The P5 had to be aware of this responsibility as it was up to them to introduce some elements and points to help the Conference get out of the deadlock. The President had explained the nature of the deadlock in the Conference, and how it needed to deal with this question of its common heritage. The Conference member States needed to be in a process of carrying out their deliberations together, rather than opposing each other. Attitudes needed to be positive.
Mr. Dembri said that, generally speaking, the Conference had always had a positive approach because it followed a code of conduct on the universal nature of international disarmament. In the past, members had shown the need to subordinate their national needs to the will of the international community and the scrutiny of the international community. This was the price to be paid to avoid the deadlock of the Conference. But sometimes this was difficult. How was it that until now there had been no organized thinking on the nuclear potential of Israel, there was a large silence on this subject which was unbearable. Clearly, today, the questions were different. For example, with respect to terrorism, the international community was expected to show universal solidarity after
11 September on this issue. This form of terrorism had existed for years, and solidarity had not always been expressed with it; Algeria and Egypt had faced this for years, as had Germany, France, Italy and Japan among others. Reflections on terrorism today had to take all of this into account.
The representative of Algeria said that he hoped that, through the skills of France, the Conference would get proposals which would help it break its deadlock. There was a need to see as a concern the fact that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty had not come into force. Also the United States and the Russian Federation had signed a new treaty to reduce their nuclear arsenals, but they were not giving up on their doctrine of deterrence, they were not advocating the total elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The Conference ought not to lose sight of the fact that its main objective was total nuclear disarmament. The Conference was waiting for clear statements so as to make its working doctrine equally clear. Otherwise, it was clear that the situation would imperil the success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the risk of the horizontal and vertical spread of nuclear weapons would become a concern. At the NPT Review Conference, there were solemn commitments undertaken by nuclear States,
but two years later there was a clear refusal to move towards the removal of nuclear arsenals. The Conference would like a reply to this question. It needed a clear explanation on how the doctrines of these countries were going to evolve so that it could organize its work programme. It was clear that the Conference was expecting from France a contribution that would unblock its situation.
Mr. MORA GODOY (Cuba) said he was sorry to take the floor again. Because Cuba believed in the validity and relevance of the Conference as the appropriate multilateral forum for addressing matters relating to disarmament and arms control, it had felt it necessary to refer to the accusations by the United States. The representative of the United States had stated that it was difficult to establish cooperation following inflammatory statements; however, Cuba had not been the first to throw the stone. On 6 May 2002, Cuba had been accused of being in the process of preparing biological weapons. Did Cuba not have the right to deny this accusation? This was not an inflammatory statement; Cuba was simply stating the truth. If the United States used this argument to avoid displaying an attitude of decorum and decency on the question of biological weapons, Cuba did not view this as a real intention to establish cooperation on this issue. Why did the Conference not start on the question of nuclear disarmament, which was of concern to everyone in the world? Cuba was taking note of statements regarding possible cooperation on this matter, and it was prepared to continue cooperation in this forum or even in bilateral talks.
* *** *